GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

Beaudry’s Store Huntington, Vermont

SMS Site # 20023061

September 2008

Prepared for:

Terry and Linda Pecor

Beaudry’s Store Main Street

Huntington, Vermont, 05462 (802) 434-2564

Prepared by:

Sprague GeoScience

480 Salvas Road Huntington, Vermont 05462

(802) 434-5522

Contact: Cindy Sprague, Principal Hydrogeologist

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ i 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES AND RESULTS ................................................. 2

2.1 Groundwater Flow Direction 2.2 Monitoring Well Sampling and Analysis 2.3 Sensitive Receptor Survey 2.4 Potential Sources of the Release 2.5 Well Repair

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 8 FIGURES Figure 1A Site Location Map Figure 1B Beaudry’s Store Area Map Figure 2 Groundwater Contour Map Figure 3 Total VOC Iso Concentration Map Figure 4 Map Showing Jaques Store Monitoring Wells TABLES Table 1 Water Level Elevation Data Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results APPENDICES Appendix A Groundwater Quality Graphs Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Reports Appendix C VTDEC Tank System Inspection Appendix D Spill Containment Bucket Tightness Test Appendix E Tank Tightness Test

Sprague GeoScience Beaudry’s Store Groundwater Monitoring Report

Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the results of the August 2008 groundwater monitoring at Beaudry’s

Store (SMS Site # 2002-3061), located in Huntington, Vermont. This work was requested by the

State of Vermont Sites Management Section, and is outlined in a review letter dated October 17,

2006. The letter was in response to the results of the October 2006 groundwater monitoring

report by Sprague GeoScience for both Beaudry’s and Jaques Stores. Reporting for these sites is

now being conducted separately because of a recent release detected at Beaudry’s Store. In

addition to groundwater monitoring, this report presents the results of a sensitive receptor survey

and possible source of the release.

Sprague GeoScience’s findings and recommendations related to this work are summarized as

follows:

Findings

• Laboratory analytical results of groundwater samples collected on August 13, 2008 from the groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the site indicate a large increase in the concentration of dissolved phase petroleum related compounds in the shallow unconfined aquifer. Approximately 0.01 foot of free product was detected in MW-4B. The product has been identified by Endyne Inc. as gasoline. No VOC’s were detected in the Beaudry’s store supply well. This well is completed in a lower confined gravel aquifer.

• Based on the water table elevation data collected on August 13, 2008, groundwater flow

in the shallow unconfined aquifer in the vicinity of the site appears to the to the east towards the Huntington River at a horizontal hydraulic gradient of about 4%.

• Both the basement and the first floor of Beaudry’s store were found to have elevated

levels of petroleum vapors. Total VOCs concentrations as measured with a PID in the basement of the store, were reported to be on the order of 10 - 15 ppmv on August 14, 2008. PID reading taken on the first floor were on the order of 5 ppmv. It is unknown how long the store had been impacted with petroleum VOC vapors. The basement of neighboring residences, namely the Pecor’s and the Snyder’s, were not found to be impacted by petroleum vapors. Total VOC concentrations in both of these basements were reported to be undetected.

• As a short-term emergency response measure, on August 14, a large volume fan was set

up to blow air out of the basement door of Beaudry’s store during the daytime hours. This helped reduced the VOC vapors in the basement for the short term and eliminated detectable VOC vapors on the first floor. Plastic sheeting was placed over the dirt floor of the crawl space on August 16, 2008. This proved to be an effective measure to reduce VOC vapors in the basement.

Sprague GeoScience Beaudry’s Store Groundwater Monitoring Report

Page ii

• A tank tightness test was conducted on September 15, 2008. The tank consists of a 5,000

gallon double walled tank with two compartments. During this test, the cap on the automatic tank gauge (ATG) riser pipe on the 4K compartment was found to be broken. In addition, according to Mr. Penney, who conducted the tank tightness testing, the overfill protection devises installed on both tank compartments, cannot operate when the tanks are filled using the current delivery system. Therefore, it is possible that if the tank was overfilled, product could be released via the ATG riser pipe directly into the subsurface.

• A Vapor Extraction System is currently operational at the site. The system was started on

September 27, 2008.

Recommendations • The degree and extent of the petroleum release, as well as the extent of the free phase

product is unknown. Therefore, additional site characterization is recommended.

• As requested by the SMS, Sprague GeoScience will begin quarterly water quality sampling of the four on-site groundwater monitoring wells. In addition, SGS recommends that down gradient well MW-10 (originally installed as part of the Jaques Store investigation) and Beaudry’s Supply well also be sampled on a quarterly basis. The next round of groundwater sampling is scheduled for October or November 2008.

• SGS recommends that the on-site groundwater monitoring wells be resurveyed to

determine elevation data.

• Proper protocol should be used during fuel deliveries to assure that the tank compartments are not inadvertently overfilled. In addition, a representative from Beaudry’s store should oversee the delivery operation. An overfill alarm should be placed outside the Store so it can be heard by fuel delivery personnel.

• The spill containment buckets should be replaced.

Sprague GeoScience Beaudry’s Store August 2008 GW Monitoring Report

Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of groundwater sampling and analysis conducted by Sprague

GeoScience (SGS) on August 13, 2008, at Beaudry’s Store (SMS Site # 2002-3061) located in

Huntington, Vermont (Figures 1A and 1B). The Sites Management Section requested this work

in a review letter dated October 17, 2006. Site conditions at Beaudry’s store have changed

considerably since the last sampling round in July 2006, and there is evidense of a release of

gasoline at the site. Given this change in site conditions, the groundwater monitoring reports for

Beaudry’s Store and Jaques Country Store are being presented in separate documents. During

the past several sampling rounds, the results from these two sites had been reported together.

Free product was discovered in MW-4B on August 13, 2008. In addition, elevated VOC vapors

were detected in the basement and first floor of Beaudry’s Store. As a short-term emergency

response measure, a large volume fan was set up to blow air out of the basement door during the

daytime hours. This helped reduced the VOC vapors in the basement for the short term and

eliminated detectable VOC vapors on the first floor. Plastic sheeting was placed over the dirt

floor of the crawl space on August 16, 2008. This proved to be an effective measure to reduce

VOC vapors in the basement.

A Vapor Extraction System has been installed on site and is currently operational. The system

was started on September 27, 2008. The VTDEC has been kept apprised of the situation and has

approved the remedial actions taken to date.


Page 2

2.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 Groundwater Flow Direction

Based on the results of this investigation, the overall flow direction of the groundwater in

the shallow unconfined surficial aquifer in the vicinity of the site appears to be to the east

towards the Huntington River (Figure 2). The average horizontal hydraulic gradient of

the unconfined sand and gravel aquifer in the vicinity of the site is approximately 4

percent.

Water levels were measured in four (4) groundwater monitoring wells on August 13,

2008. The depth to groundwater in the monitoring wells ranged from 7.06 feet (MW-4B)

to 9.00 feet (MW-2B) below top-of-casing. Water-level measurements and groundwater

elevations are presented in Table 1. The elevation of each of the groundwater monitoring

wells is relative to an arbitrary datum elevation of 99.86 feet for Jaques Country Store

MW-3.

2.2 Monitoring Well Sampling and Analysis

On August 13, 2008 Sprague GeoScience collected groundwater samples from the four

on-site groundwater monitoring wells for laboratory analysis. Samples were also

collected from MW-10 on August 15, 2008 as part of the Jaques Country Store

monitoring. Results from Jaques Store MW-10 are included in this report because it is

located down gradient of the Beaudry’s store site. Samples were analyzed by Endyne

Inc. of Williston Vermont for volatile organic compounds in accordance with EPA

Method 8021B. These results are summarized in Table 2. Additional samples were

collected on August 14, 2008 from MW-4B for fuel identification, and from Beaudry’s

supply well for VOCs in accordance with EPA Method 524.2. Laboratory analytical

reports are presented in Appendix A.

The laboratory reports indicate that elevated levels of petroleum related compounds were

detected in all four of the on-site groundwater monitoring wells. In addition,

approximately 0.01 feet of separate phase product was detected in MW4B. The free


Page 3

phase product was identified by the laboratory to be gasoline. Both MW-10 and

Beaudry’s supply well were determined to be free of the compounds tested.

The former gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was not detected in any

of the wells. Benzene was detected above the Vermont groundwater enforcement

standard (VGES) in all four of the on-site groundwater monitoring wells. The

compounds Toluene, Ethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene and 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

were detected in all four groundwater monitoring wells and were above the VGES in

MW-2B, 3B, and 4B. Xylene was also detected in all four wells and was above the

VGES in MW-3B and 4B. Naphthalene was not detected in any of the wells.

The analytical results were mapped to show the distribution of dissolved-phase

groundwater contamination at the Beaudry’s Store site for total VOCs (Figure 3). This

figure depicts an oval shaped plume encompassing much of the site, although the exact

shape and extent of the plume is not known at this time. As noted previously, no VOCs

were detected in MW-10, which is located east of the site, near the Huntington River

(Figure 4).

Graphs of total VOCs and total BTEX versus time for the four groundwater monitoring

wells are presented in Appendix B. These graphs suggest that the concentration of

petroleum related contamination on the site has jumped dramatically in MW-2B, 3B and

4B, and has risen somewhat in MW-1B.

Prior to collecting groundwater samples, the monitoring wells were purged and then

sampled using dedicated bailers and dropline. Purge water was discharged directly to the

ground in the vicinity of each well. A duplicate sample was collected from Jaques Store

MW-5 to ensure that adequate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) standards were

maintained. All samples were transported under chain-of-custody in an ice-filled cooler

to Endyne, Inc. of Williston, Vermont, and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8021B.


Page 4

Analytical results from the QA/QC samples indicate that adequate QA/QC was

maintained during sample collection and analysis. None of the VOC compounds tested

were reported in the trip blank. Analytical results of the duplicate sample for Jaques

Store MW-5, (labeled MW-20) were analyzed using a relative percent difference (RPD)

analysis. The RPD is the difference between the original sample and the duplicate,

multiplied by 100 and divided by the average of the two sample results. A small RPD

indicates a good correlation between the original sample and it’s duplicate. The RPD

values ranged from –7.3 to 44.1. Table 2 includes a summary of the QA/QC analytical

results.

2.3 Sensitive Receptor Survey

Sprague GeoScience conducted a survey to identify sensitive receptors in the vicinity of

Beaudry’s Store that could potentially be impacted by contamination associated with the

recent release. Potential receptors identified included: private water supplies serving the

site and neighboring properties; the basement of Beaudry’s store and adjacent residences;

and the Huntington River, which is located approximately 300 feet east-northeast of the

existing UST.

The well thought to be at greatest risk of petroleum contamination from the release is the

Beaudry’s Store supply well. This well is a concern, because it is located within the area

of the contaminant plume. No VOC compounds were detected in this well. The Snyder

supply well is also a potential concern but to a much lesser degree. This well was not

sampled during this event. It is thought that these two wells are completed in the lower

confined gravel aquifer, and it appears at this time, based on the available data, that the

petroleum contamination has only impacted the shallow unconfined aquifer.

The basements of the Pecor residence, Beaudry’s store and the Snyder residence are

considered potential receptors, given their close proximity to the contaminant plume

(Beaudry’s Store basement is located within the contaminant plume). Sprague

GeoScience screened the basements of these buildings for total VOCs with a PID. No

odors or detectable PID readings were noted in the Pecor basement or the Snyder


Page 5

basement, however, elevated PID readings and a strong gasoline odor was observed in

the basement of Beaudry’s Store. The Beaudry’s store basement contains a poured

concrete floor under the northern portion of the building, and dirt floor under the southern

section. The walls were built of cemented fieldstone. Total VOCs concentrations as

measured with a PID in the basement of the store were reported to be on the order of 10 -

15 ppmv on August 14, 2008. PID reading taken on the first floor of the store were on

the order of 5 ppmv. As a short-term emergency response measure, on August 14, a large

volume fan was set up to blow air out of the basement door during the daytime hours.

This helped reduced the VOC vapors in the basement for the short term and eliminated

detectable VOC vapors on the first floor. Plastic sheeting was placed over the dirt floor

of the crawl space on August 16, 2008. This proved to be an effective measure to reduce

VOC vapors in the basement. The basement continues to be impacted by petroleum

vapors, and a Vapor Extraction System (VES) is currently operating on site to treat these

vapors.

The Huntington River is located approximately 300 feet east of the site. During a site

reconnaissance survey on September 18. 2008, a small groundwater seep was observed

along the river bank down gradient of the site. The seep smelled like petroleum and there

was a broken organic sheen on the surface of the ponded water from the seep. A sample

of the seep was collected and submitted to Endyne Inc. for analysis of VOCs in

accordance with EPA Method 8021B. The results of this analysis will be forwarded to

the State DEC upon receipt. There was no obvious contamination noted in the

Huntington River itself.

Human exposure to the petroleum contamination in the vicinity of the site is possible as a

result of excavation activities, or entry into the basement. Therefore, VOC

concentrations should be monitored and personnel should be aware of the site conditions

prior to entry into the basement. Personnel conducting excavation activities in the site

vicinity should be notified of the potential risks.


Page 6

2.4 Potential Source of the Release

The potential source of the release has been investigated both by SGS and Vermont State

personnel. Mr. Jayme Cleland of the Vermont DEC conducted an inspection of the

existing tank system on August 19, 2008. The tank system was installed in November

2002, and consists of a 5,000-gallon Highland Jacket doubled-walled dual compartment

gasoline UST, and associated fiberglass piping. The tank compartments are 1K and 4K

in size and both compartments contain regular gasoline. The only potential item

identified for further evaluation by Mr. Cleland was the spill containment bucket for the

4K tank compartment. No other potential sources were identified. A copy of the trip

report is presented in Appendix C.

SGS conducted a preliminary, cursory leak test of the spill containment buckets from

August 27, to September 11, 2008. There were no visible cracks or leaks in either of the

spill containment buckets. Water was added to the spill bucket of the 4K and 1K tank

compartments and the water level in both spill buckets was measured over time. Minimal

drop (0.15 cm) in the water level was observed in the 4k bucket during the first 42 hours

of the test. No drop in water level was noted in the 1K bucket during this time.

However, after 333 hours both buckets were dry or nearly dry. It is uncertain if these

buckets were pumped dry by fuel delivery personnel, or if the drop in water level is due

to evaporation, or some other cause. A more detailed test would be need to be conducted

to provide better quality data and more definitive results. However, given the minimal

drop during the initial 42 hours, and the apparent extent of the release, this did not appear

to be a significant potential source of the release. A copy of the spill containment bucket

test data are presented in Appendix D.

A tank tightness test was conducted by Mr. Chris Penney of Tank Testing Services of

New England, Ltd on September 15, 2008. A copy of the tank testing report is presented

in Appendix E. The tank and piping were reported to be intact. However, the automatic

tank gauge (ATG) riser cap on the 4K compartment was broken and not attached to the

vent riser adaptor. The 1K fill riser was severely pitted and scaled and oxidation from it


Page 7

has damaged the drop tube and flapper to be useless. In addition, according to Mr.

Penney the overfill protection devise (an OPW 6150) installed on both compartments,

cannot operate when the tanks are filled using a “puddle truck” equipped with a stinger.

Because of the relatively small deliveries, the tanks at Beaudry’s store are currently filled

using this system. Therefore, a possible scenario for the source of the release, would be

if the fuel tank was overfilled, product could escape out of the ATG port of the 4K

compartment, and be released to the subsurface environment.

2.5 Well Repair

During this sampling event, the PVC pipe in monitoring wells MW-1B, 2B and 3B was

found to have heaved, and the expansion plugs were crushed. The pavement around

MW- 2B had been destroyed. Therefore, the PVC riser pipe in these three (3) wells were

cut down approximately 0.1 foot to allow the road box covers to close properly and the

expansion plugs were replaced. The pavement around the road box in MW-2B was

patched with quick patch black top, and the bailer was replaced.


Page 8

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on the results of this investigation.

• Sprague GeoScience agrees with the States request for quarterly water quality sampling of the four on-site wells. In addition, SGS recommends that Jaques Store MW-10, which is located down gradient of the site, and Beaudry’s Supply well also be sampled on a quarterly basis. The next groundwater sampling round is scheduled for October or November 2008. The basement of the Snyder and Pecor residences should be screened for VOCs with a PID as part of the quarterly sampling events.

• SGS recommends that the on-site groundwater monitoring wells be resurveyed to obtain

accurate elevation data. MW-1B, MW-2B and MW-3B have heaved and been cut down over the years and MW-4B was recently plumbed into the VES.

• The degree and extent of the petroleum release, as well as the extent of the free phase

product is unknown. Therefore SGS recommends the installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapor extraction wells on the site. A written proposal and cost estimate will be provided to the DEC for this investigation.

• Proper protocol should be used during fuel deliveries to assure that the tank

compartments are not inadvertently overfilled. In addition, a representative from Beaudry’s store should oversee the delivery operation. An overfill alarm should be placed outside the Store so it can be heard by fuel delivery personnel. The cap on the 4K compartment ATG port should be replaced.

• According to the VTDEC, spill containment buckets have a life expectancy of five (5)

years. According to Linda Pecor, Beaudry’s Store owner, the existing spill containment buckets were installed in 2002. Therefore, it is recommended that both spill containment buckets be replaced. Unless the VTDEC has granted a variance, replacement spill containment buckets must have a capacity of 15 gallons or more. The UST program must be notified prior to replacing these buckets.

FIGURES

TABLES

Table 1Water Level Elevation Data

8/13/2008

TopWell I.D. of Casing Depth To Depth To Water Table Comments

Elevation Product Water (ft) Elevation (ft)MW-1B 97.17 None 8.90 88.27MW-2B 97.11 None 9.00 88.11MW-3B 95.44 None 7.52 87.92MW-4B 93.08 7.05 7.06 86.02 approx 0.01' of product in wellMW-10 87.04 None 6.82 80.22 Jaques Store MW

Notes: All Values Reported in Feet Top-of-Casing Elevations Measured in Feet Relative to MW-3 set at 99.86' NM - Not Measured

NA - Not Accessible The elevations of the Beaudry Store Wells were resurveyed by Grover Engineering on 7/30/03

MW-1B, MW-2 B, MW-3 B and MW-4 B, were formerly known as Beaudy's Store Wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 respectively, They may also be referred to as MW-1Beau, MW-2 Beau and etc. MW-1B, MW-3B, were cut down on 7/7/2004 to allow the well caps to close. The TOC elevations shown reflect these modifications MW-2B and MW-3B and were cut down on 10/5/05 to allow well caps to close. MW-1B, MW-2B and MW-3B and were cut down on 8/14/08 to allow well caps to close. TOC elevations were NOT modified for the 2005, 2006, or 2008 repairs because it appears the wells have heaved.

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Beaudry's Store

Monitoring Date: August 13, 2008

Sample Location Total VOCs MTBE Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes

1,3,5 Trimethyl Benzene


Naphthalene Fuel ID

MW-1B 86.4 ND<2 54.7 20.1 2.1 7.5 ND<1 2.0 ND<2 NS

MW-2B 26,912 ND<200 3,670 13,000 1,610 7,480 259 893 ND<200 NS

MW-3B 51,715 ND<1,000 9,240 25,200 2,340 12,400 555 1,980 ND<1,000 NSMW-4B 103,310 ND<2,000 8,530 48,800 5,810 32,700 1,920 5,550 ND<2,000 Gasoline

MW-10 (Jaques) 0 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 NSVGES -- 40.0 5.0 1,000.0 700.0 10,000.0 4.0 5.0 20.0 -

QA/QC Samples by EPA Method 8021B (duplicate from Jaques Store MW-5, trip blank is for both Jaques and Beaudrys Store)

Dup. (labled MW-20) 2,246.5 1,590.0 457.0 13.3 57.6 67.0 ND<10 39.0 22.6 NS

MW-5 (Jaques) 2,337.8 1,710.0 488.0 12.3 36.9 44.5 2.9 24.9 18.3 NS

RPD -- -7.3 -6.6 7.8 43.8 40.4 - 44.1 21.0 -

Trip Blank (TB) 0.0 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 NS

Notes: All Ground-water samples were collected by SGS on Aug 13, 2008 and analyzed by Endyne, Inc. for volatile petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 8021B, and EPA Method 8015B for Fuel ID samples Results given in micrograms per liter (µg/L)ND - None detected at indicated detection limit.TBQ - Trace below indicated quantitation limit.N/A - Not analyzed VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards.NS - Not SampledM - Indicates Laboratory Fortified Matrix analysis indicates there may be a negative interferenceShaded concentrations exceed VGES.RPD -Relative Percent Difference. The RPD is defined as 100 times the difference in reported concentration between sample and duplicate, divided by the mean of the two samples. A small RPD indicates good correlation between sample and duplicat

Sprague GeoScience

APPENDIX A LABORATORY REPORTS

Laboratory Report

Beaudrys & JacquesPROJECT:

DATE RECEIVED:

WORK ORDER:

DATE REPORTED:

100518Sprague GeoScience

480 Salvas Road

Huntington, VT 05462

Atten: Cindy Sprague SAMPLER:

August 26, 2008

0808-11595

CS

August 14, 2008

Enclosed please find the results of the analyses performed for the samples referenced on the attached chain of custody located at the end of this report.

The column labeled Lab/Tech in the accompanying report denotes the laboratory facility where the testing was performed and the technician who conducted the assay. A "W" designates the Williston, VT lab under NELAC certification ELAP 11263; "R" designates the Randolph, VT facility under certification NH 2037 and “N” the Plattsburgh, NY lab under certification ELAP 11892. “Sub” indicates the testing was performed by a subcontracted laboratory. The accreditation status of the subcontracted lab is referenced in the corresponding NELAC and Qual fields.

This NELAC column also denotes the accreditation status of each laboratory for each

reported parameter. “A” indicates the referenced laboratory is NELAC accredited for the parameter reported. “N” indicates the laboratory is not accredited. “U” indicates that NELAC does not offer accreditation for that parameter in that specific matrix. Test results denoted with an “A” meet all National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program requirements except where denoted by pertinent data qualifiers. Test results are representative of the samples as they were received at the laboratory.

Endyne, Inc. warrants, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the accuracy of the analytical

test results contained in this report, but makes no other warranty, expressed or implied, especially no warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Reviewed by:

Harry B. Locker, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director

160 James Brown Dr., Williston, VT 05495

Ph 802-879-4333 Fax 802-879-7103

P.O. Box 405, Randolph, VT 05060

Ph 802-728-6313 Fax 802-728-6044

ELAP 11263

www.endynelabs.com

NH2037

Laboratory Report

Sprague GeoScience

Page 2 of 3

CLIENT:PROJECT: Beaudrys & Jacques

WORK ORDER:DATE RECEIVED:

0808-1159508/14/2008

8/26/2008REPORT DATE:

001 Date Sampled: 8/13/08Site: MW 1B 8/22/08 JRMWAnalysis Date:14:20

QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter

TEST METHOD: EPA 8021B

Nug/LMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 2.0 Nug/LBenzene 54.7

Nug/LToluene 20.1 Nug/LEthylbenzene 2.1

Nug/LXylenes, Total 7.5 Nug/L1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 1.0

Nug/L1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2.0 Nug/LNaphthalene < 2.0

N%Surr. 1 (Bromobenzene) 88 NUnidentified Peaks > 10


QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter


Nug/LMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 200 Nug/LBenzene 3,670

Nug/LToluene 13,000 Nug/LEthylbenzene 1,610

Nug/LXylenes, Total 7,480 Nug/L1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 259

Nug/L1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 893 Nug/LNaphthalene < 200

N%Surr. 1 (Bromobenzene) 80 NUnidentified Peaks 1


QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter


Nug/LMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 1,000 Nug/LBenzene 9,240


Nug/LXylenes, Total 12,400 Nug/L1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 555

Nug/L1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,980 Nug/LNaphthalene < 1,000



QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter


Nug/LMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 2,000 Nug/LBenzene 8,530


Nug/LXylenes, Total 32,700 Nug/L1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,920

Nug/L1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5,550 Nug/LNaphthalene < 2,000


005 Date Sampled: 8/14/08Site: MW 4B FID 8/19/08 EPGWAnalysis Date:09:40

QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter

TEST METHOD:

UHydrocarbon Range C6 - C14 UFuel Identification Gasoline

Laboratory Report

Sprague GeoScience

Page 3 of 3

CLIENT:PROJECT: Beaudrys & Jacques


0808-1159508/14/2008


006 Date Sampled: 8/14/08Site: Beaudrys Well 8/18/08 DAWWAnalysis Date:09:30

QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter

TEST METHOD: EPA 524.2

Aug/LDichlorodifluoromethane < 0.5 Aug/LChloromethane < 0.5

Aug/LVinyl chloride < 0.5 Aug/LBromomethane < 0.5

Aug/LChloroethane < 0.5 Aug/LTrichlorofluoromethane < 0.5

Aug/L1,1-Dichloroethene < 0.5 Aug/LMethylene chloride < 1.0

Aug/LMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.5 Aug/Ltrans-1,2-Dichloroethene < 0.5

Aug/L1,1-Dichloroethane < 0.5 Aug/L2,2-Dichloropropane < 0.5

Aug/Lcis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 0.5 Aug/LBromochloromethane < 0.5

Aug/LChloroform < 0.5 Aug/L1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 0.5

Aug/LCarbon tetrachloride < 0.5 Aug/L1,1-Dichloropropene < 0.5

Aug/LBenzene < 0.5 Aug/L1,2-Dichloroethane < 0.5

Aug/LTrichloroethene < 0.5 Aug/L1,2-Dichloropropane < 0.5

Aug/LDibromomethane < 0.5 Aug/LBromodichloromethane < 0.5

Aug/Lcis-1,3-Dichloropropene < 0.5 Aug/LToluene < 0.5

Aug/Ltrans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 0.5 Aug/L1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 0.5

Aug/LTetrachloroethene < 0.5 Aug/L1,3-Dichloropropane < 0.5

Aug/LDibromochloromethane < 0.5 Aug/LChlorobenzene < 0.5

Aug/LEthylbenzene < 0.5 Aug/L1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.5

Aug/LXylenes, Total < 1.0 Aug/LStyrene < 0.5

Aug/LBromoform < 0.5 Aug/LIsopropylbenzene < 0.5

Aug/L1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 0.5 Aug/LBromobenzene < 0.5

Aug/Ln-Propylbenzene < 0.5 Aug/L1,2,3-Trichloropropane < 0.5

Aug/L2-Chlorotoluene < 0.5 Aug/L1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene < 0.5

Aug/L4-Chlorotoluene < 0.5 Aug/Lt-Butylbenzene < 0.5

Aug/L1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene < 0.5 Aug/Ls-Butylbenzene < 0.5

Aug/L4-Isopropyltoluene < 0.5 Aug/L1,3-Dichlorobenzene < 0.5

Aug/L1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 0.5 Aug/Ln-Butylbenzene < 0.5

Aug/L1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 0.5 Aug/L1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 0.5

Aug/LHexachlorobutadiene < 0.5 Uug/LNaphthalene < 0.5

Aug/L1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene < 0.5 A%Surr. 1 (4-Bromofluorobenzene) 100

A%Surr. 2 (1,2-Dichlorobenzene d4) 95

007 Date Sampled: 8/14/08Site: MW 2B FID 8/19/08 EPGWAnalysis Date:15:00

QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter

TEST METHOD:

UHydrocarbon Range C6 - C14 UFuel Identification Gasoline

Laboratory Report

Jaques StorePROJECT:

DATE RECEIVED:

WORK ORDER:

DATE REPORTED:

100518Sprague GeoScience

480 Salvas Road

Huntington, VT 05462

Atten: Cindy Sprague SAMPLER:

August 26, 2008

0808-11628

CS

August 15, 2008

Enclosed please find the results of the analyses performed for the samples referenced on the attached chain of custody located at the end of this report.

The column labeled Lab/Tech in the accompanying report denotes the laboratory facility where the testing was performed and the technician who conducted the assay. A "W" designates the Williston, VT lab under NELAC certification ELAP 11263; "R" designates the Randolph, VT facility under certification NH 2037 and “N” the Plattsburgh, NY lab under certification ELAP 11892. “Sub” indicates the testing was performed by a subcontracted laboratory. The accreditation status of the subcontracted lab is referenced in the corresponding NELAC and Qual fields.

This NELAC column also denotes the accreditation status of each laboratory for each

reported parameter. “A” indicates the referenced laboratory is NELAC accredited for the parameter reported. “N” indicates the laboratory is not accredited. “U” indicates that NELAC does not offer accreditation for that parameter in that specific matrix. Test results denoted with an “A” meet all National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program requirements except where denoted by pertinent data qualifiers. Test results are representative of the samples as they were received at the laboratory.

Endyne, Inc. warrants, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the accuracy of the analytical

test results contained in this report, but makes no other warranty, expressed or implied, especially no warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Reviewed by:

Harry B. Locker, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director

160 James Brown Dr., Williston, VT 05495

Ph 802-879-4333 Fax 802-879-7103

P.O. Box 405, Randolph, VT 05060

Ph 802-728-6313 Fax 802-728-6044

ELAP 11263

www.endynelabs.com

NH2037

Laboratory Report

Sprague GeoScience

Page 2 of 2

CLIENT:PROJECT: Jaques Store


0808-1162808/15/2008


EPA 8021BTEST METHOD:

001 Date Sampled: 8/15/08Site: MW-10 8/21/08 JRMWAnalysis Date:11:00

QualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

ParameterQualNelac

Result

UnitResult

Result

Parameter

Vt Petroleum List 8021B < 2.0 NMethyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ug/L

< 1.0 NBenzene ug/L < 1.0 NToluene ug/L

< 1.0 NEthylbenzene ug/L < 2.0 NXylenes, Total ug/L

< 1.0 N1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ug/L < 1.0 N1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ug/L

< 2.0 NNaphthalene ug/L 85 NSurr. 1 (Bromobenzene) %

0 NUnidentified Peaks

APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER QUALITY GRAPHS

Groundwater Quality SummaryBeaudry's Store

Huntington, VermontMonitoring Well MW-1B

Sampling DateM8021B PARAMETER 3/25/03 7/30/03 7/6/04 7/27/05 7/11/06 8/13/08 VGES (1)

MTBE 172 77.7 94.9 32.1 17.0 ND<2 40Benzene 20.4 5.4 12.4 ND<5 1.1 54.7 5Toluene 2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<5 ND<1 20.1 1000Ethylbenzene 104 11.1 29.2 7.9 1.9 2.1 700Xylenes 140 ND<2 ND<2 ND<10 ND<2 7.5 100001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.4 ND<1 ND<1 ND<5 ND<1 ND<1 41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 166 6.8 35.8 6.9 ND<1 2.0 5Naphthalene 25.9 3.2 4.4 5.5 ND<2 ND<2 20Total BTEX 266.4 16.5 41.6 7.9 3.0 84.4Total VOCs (M8021b) 633.7 104.2 176.7 52.4 20.0 86.4Groundwater Elevation -- 88.64 87.30 88.39 88.64 88.27 --

NOTES: Results reported above detection limits are indicated in bold(1) VGES = Vermont Groundwater Enforcement StandardsValues greater than the VGES (Table 1 of the Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy ) are shaded.EPA Method 8021B used for laboratory analysis All values reported in ug/l (ppb) unless otherwise notedND<X - Not Detected (Detection Limit)TBQ <X = Trace Below Quantitation LimitNA - Not analyzed for this parametern/a = not applicableNS - Not Sampled

0

200

400

600

800

Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08 Jul-09

Date of Sample Collection

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/L)

Total BTEXTotal Reported VOCs (M8021B)

Beaudry's Store Contaminant Concentrations vs. Time in MW-1B




MTBE 86.5 63.2 47.5 18.4 11.3 ND<200 40Benzene 3.7 37.8 9.6 ND<1 10.4 3,670 5Toluene ND<1 8.5 ND<5 ND<1 ND<1 13,000 1000Ethylbenzene 5.3 ND<5 ND<5 2.3 2.0 1,610 700Xylenes 2.3 ND<10 ND<10 ND<2 ND<2 7,480 100001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND<1 ND<5 ND<5 ND<1 ND<1 259 41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 13.5 ND<5 ND<5 ND<1 ND<1 893 5Naphthalene ND<2 ND<5 ND<5 ND<1 ND<2 ND<200 20Total BTEX 11.3 46.3 9.6 2.3 12.4 25760Total VOCs (M8021b) 111.3 109.5 57.1 20.7 23.7 26912Groundwater Elevation -- 87.78 87.61 87.69 87.94 88.11 --


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000



Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/L)






MTBE 37.8 34.3 16.4 5.4 ND<2 ND<1,000 40Benzene ND<2 7 8.4 ND<1 4.9 9,240 5Toluene ND<2 1.6 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 25,200 1000Ethylbenzene 7.1 4.4 2.6 ND<1 ND<1 2,340 700Xylenes 19.7 3.4 ND<2 ND<2 ND<2 12,400 100001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 41.7 2 7.9 ND<1 ND<1 555 41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 225 60.5 46 ND<1 ND<1 1,980 5Naphthalene 10.1 1.8 7.2 3.7 ND<2 ND<1,000 20Total BTEX 26.8 16.4 11 ND 4.9 49180Total VOCs (M8021b) 341.4 115 88.5 9.1 4.9 51715Groundwater Elevation -- 87.81 87.55 87.54 87.77 87.92 --


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000



Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/L)






MTBE 10.2 8.5 3.6 ND<2 16.1 ND<2,000 40Benzene ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 8,530 5Toluene ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 48,800 1000Ethylbenzene ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 5,810 700Xylenes ND<2 ND<2 ND<2 ND<2 ND<2 32,700 100001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 1,920 41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1M 5,550 5Naphthalene ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 ND<2,000 20Total BTEX ND ND ND ND ND 95840Total VOCs (M8021b) 10.2 8.5 3.6 ND 16.1 103310Groundwater Elevation -- 86.47 86.31 86.41 86.59 86.02 --


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000



Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/L)



APPENDIX C VTDEC TANK SYSTEM INSPECTION

APPENDIX D SPILL CONTAINMENT BUCKET TIGHTNESS TEST

Beaudry's StoreWater Level in Spill Containment Buckets vs Date

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8/28/2008 8/30/2008 9/1/2008 9/3/2008 9/5/2008 9/7/2008 9/9/2008 9/11/2008 9/13/2008

Date

Hea

d in

cm

4K Spill Containment Bucket1K Spill Containment Bucket

Beaudry's StoreSpill Containment Bucket Tightness Test

Date and Time Elapsed Time

(hours)

4K Bucket Head (cm)

1K Bucket Head (cm)

Comments

8/28/08 4:50 PM 0.00

Not measured

4K: Water present in spill bucket prior to test. Add 17 oz water. Install ruler to measure head in sump. Ruler measures head above bottom of sump.

8/28/08 5:04 PM

0.23

10.4 1K: Measure water level in bucket then add 17 oz water.

8/28/08 5:05 PM 0.25 10.25 11.08/29/08 12:50 PM 20.00 10.2 11.08/30/08 11:10 AM 42.33 10.1 11.09/11/08 1:50 PM 333.00 0.8 0.0 End of Test

Notes: Spill containment buckets are approximately 27.4 cm high with a 33.5 cm diameter.and have a 7 cm sump. Total depth of bucket in the vicinity of the sump is 34.3 cm.

APPENDIX E TANK TIGHTNESS TEST

A~ItIVE'n 8cAuf)~tI5 5T~Rr /1/.,11 S"lfl['FT HuNrlf.J~T(JJJI VT eoq:3 0 #()4~ > TC> ?~ ~q~ n H r L'I.l/1 7,x G r T ["'f TlfJt;. 0lv A 15, ft/~C.A r!,1)

5"000 Q,./.l~).) (j..A~dL./Nt U5T ('1<JOO !fr~,ilA*-/ IJO()(J I?rtJlIL~A). Tile/}JTm S-Tlr/;f L ()""h'l-ft~) )'IJCc IS b1?Y ..

CAe II c (.1 /1,) ~ r /-f E;.J r w ~S T rf TnJ .)rp) )P)frr~)',uS'/ ,J ~ /1(1., /) f1Go" S ;f. /n? rtJlll1{IJc;. .Ii DCCA Y rr5i /A)/ 7/1 /1n~ ~n~/"IJ'S -nU1l"'N

,.. I A l. l. r If IVK 0 f F'N / JJ ~.5 t/ 5"l; c TI ~ /v L I AI E' Co,{J.AI d"a 7 IO!J 5 A i 7/(rttJhP> •

.;( jJdrl' •. 7)/£ )LTG Ii'lf~ CAP oN TIE If}( CQf!/~JfTl1r#'r wA5fj 1<0JI.F ~1 ~}J 1) N~i .A r 71t C /J F1J 7 () TIII~ 111'# T If/fcll J. /)A I itJ,e ~ ;.115f?/$rl ~").s f2t1~6!"lJ rtJ"R TGif/Pc. A-N:[) N~ >/(;'/VJF/CAAIT ,fNl)l}'JtfJS

~~E o&,rf(vrtJ /)1/(1)1/.)6- TKc 7ETTJ1l7tJO~,(;#15 c/J'fiJl110E'~ t1> LA G E7) I'" 11ft), I. r t ty)

-r#t! 1)( C;ol1l'~ ih £IJ"T W~ S fi LSd Tni£!) tlfltJ6 711~ 1,O+r11F'''/1f4tJ" tlFI../l./h 1..~$"5'bJ1S' Ollrc,'1nj ,4~"tjll//) T,fr A r6 CA ~ (SIO/.L )/'fiXJlJi)

AlJlJ IN T,(r VcR T }?J5rt( AT.A S'IGAI.lPJGAl/r L.£l/rl..(J1Al.er our-r~ )j)tJ rH1?ntJ~. lI"wdm TNT INTffJ'f'ITY or tllr t.lJ'Ts-YS'J'rn 5'n-h$ 7~ $£ ;)l7I/c.r, ( 7~r)::ILi. Iflfpf 15 5,(1/l1e£"2y

/') r1!.1) 11 S'GA L f'ZJ .A /./0 )')JcvL./I dr Af1JLAC.t1) A 6 ~)(/lJA'/~)/ 7'.Rd/f I rr/'J4s /)) ifAdiff) 7..rr IYNd/J tildr i /,L*lfJrR 7"d)lt'" i/.frL~s),

/"K L' Vnfl1tJl'/ r A.)~ S''' l' r)f Nlf oJrh EW.,. /) J V 1$'/0)/ hI.,; $.'" ~l- A 1115'.fZ)

or V'I ~£frnJJA~ G 7'I<JN5. 6"rnr-~l~ ;f/~[~PPROVED~ /?~

TANK TESTING SERVICES OFNEW ENGLAND .• LTD.

80M 13" 80ffSTOWN , NH 83845"'3) "'9-8363

[' )\ 1'-L.

--".\I)

.nk 10 ~E(,.~~)(

Addr ••• 11" IN s-r'Rr; r;-r

Stet • .,J ,..

Tota' Tank Capaatv ~ 000

PrOduct Clpacity 196 7 .

INT. Capacity U /O{Now N

GAl

GAL

GAL.•..•.•.-- aM_I! .'t>~(~;;",.fT

..,•..,.,. -0 ';2.5"N/~,tJ1-J.

L.u _l ,~J:;

1d-,611 0 v~

Id-I)

0 ,,0 0i' " /~~.I~

t"J·LI- (), J- o. I

-;,1 TA lLo~~ 114i/~ hllJlJTh~- (>. I DJc,3'1 -,

,ql!1J... t

uN "NowNI [Gf~] tI

W.,••.

2E'~O~ "

Wete' 9ft

t_"1!. ---COMH£NT 3: /NTF7fJ5T1rt.xL ,~)~F DRy

. - )1&F~~;",f"'D Aiirl? -:.ri-'$""'"Art;C A f> l! )PrJJ(r j.) I AI<=' r IIV T AC. T.

tiE AIr If If t if 0 f'F'#'7~rJll.

L., f S ~ F o. I(,J.Jc INclI INI~ rrlNilfF5.

f'/(jS"lfIVI fICA-N I1'1E.J t) I N~.s Dr r Fe rro

If Y HrL 1l./17

f)~r~c ,,, ~ e ,ANY 7~NJ(

o/E'III/J&S,

I--,

J

-------~~~-~-_._~~-~._~._-------------------------

TANK TESTING SERVICES OFNEW ENGLAND. LTD •.~------------------------------------_._--_ ..

10M 73. BOFfSTOWH • HH 83145(.e3) "'-8363

;=:;;~;~;;~~~~;;~~~;'~~;;~;~~~ij~~~:;;:============:::~~~~:~~~~:::~~~~;-:- II~-

• -.Aft6~r••. J ,,-- __ • ,"""tr __"

"

~

VIIat.' 1ft

,."It

CC'lMH£NT $: //'Ir~ STIT/A l f}lAC( Df?

"BrA!-~E" t/- A friA-i;r5r-IIJtf.~-·- 5"l.)~-HriFJf)(,AN&Jt..It/iJ ArGo CAjJ.S' IG/./t FIe / IY ,..LoJ( Or1Fa....,.~'tJ

11£".,.,. fi15r1( • /Qf5"/~L,lJAt)

7"IIJfrA {J S ON J/EI/ T IllJOAI'T"jf Fd7f:J.1J1 'i '""oA i.

C,i,ty HUNT I~ Go T() t!

E

_ H

rGt~;'-]·Wahif

Totat Tenk Capacity I , 000 GAL

Product C.~City ("'~,, t l/ "0) GAL

INT. ClIP_City lJ /J I( ~"w&__ G~State \J I'

Tank tD ~ I K

t:...!.1~ 5T A E'r T

!

I

J

Noyes, Gerold

From: Cindy Sprague [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:25 PMTo: Noyes, Gerold; Eric SwiechSubject: Beaudrys Store 2008 GW Monitoring Report , Table 2 updateAttachments: Table 2 updated.pdf

Page 1 of 1

10/9/2008

Gerold and Eric, Attached please find an updated copy of Table 2 for the above referenced report. The results are the same as in the original table, but I forgot to update the new VGES for 1,3,5 and 1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene. Please insert this new table into your report. Sorry for the oversight. Thanks Cindy Sprague Principal Hydrogeologist Sprague GeoScience 480 Salvas Road Huntington, VT 05462 Phone: (802) 434-5522 Fax: (802) 434-5677

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Beaudry's Store

Monitoring Date: August 13, 2008

Sample Location Total VOCs MTBE Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes



Naphthalene Fuel ID

MW-1B 86.4 ND<2 54.7 20.1 2.1 7.5 ND<1 2.0 ND<2 NS

MW-2B 26,912 ND<200 3,670 13,000 1,610 7,480 259 893 ND<200 NS

MW-3B 51,715 ND<1,000 9,240 25,200 2,340 12,400 555 1,980 ND<1,000 NSMW-4B 103,310 ND<2,000 8,530 48,800 5,810 32,700 1,920 5,550 ND<2,000 Gasoline

MW-10 (Jaques) 0 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 NSVGES -- 40.0 5.0 1,000.0 700.0 10,000.0 20.0 -

QA/QC Samples by EPA Method 8021B (duplicate from Jaques Store MW-5, trip blank is for both Jaques and Beaudrys Store)

Dup. (labled MW-20) 2,246.5 1,590.0 457.0 13.3 57.6 67.0 ND<10 39.0 22.6 NS

MW-5 (Jaques) 2,337.8 1,710.0 488.0 12.3 36.9 44.5 2.9 24.9 18.3 NS

RPD -- -7.3 -6.6 7.8 43.8 40.4 - 44.1 21.0 -

Trip Blank (TB) 0.0 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 ND<1 ND<1 ND<2 NS

Notes: All Ground-water samples were collected by SGS on Aug 13, 2008 and analyzed by Endyne, Inc. for volatile petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 8021B, and EPA Method 8015B for Fuel ID samples Results given in micrograms per liter (µg/L)ND - None detected at indicated detection limit.TBQ - Trace below indicated quantitation limit.N/A - Not analyzed VGES - Vermont Groundwater Enforcement Standards.NS - Not SampledM - Indicates Laboratory Fortified Matrix analysis indicates there may be a negative interferenceShaded concentrations exceed VGES.RPD -Relative Percent Difference. The RPD is defined as 100 times the difference in reported concentration between sample and duplicate, divided by the mean of the two samples. A small RPD indicates good correlation between sample and duplicat

350 total for both

Sprague GeoScience

GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

Documents

Transcript of GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT